Well…if you’ve never done it.,., then you’ve never done it, go buy the gloves and try to cram the plastic ones in a pair of shrunk 1 or 2 sizes smaller than your hand? I’ve done it.

Do I have to point out that the defense did exactly what I just said? Their job was to sway the jury and they did just that and OJ was acquitted. They played master level chess and you two are still trying to figure out how to put checkers on the board 30 years later.

Edit: Just a few bullet points.

1st. They got the lead Detective on the case to commit perjury on the stand that he later plead guilty to. They also got him to take the 5th when asked directly if he planted evidence.

2nd They absolutely clowned the lead forensic investigator on the stand and got him to admit that blood evidence was mishandled and some was lost.

3rd. They got the state to commit an unforced error of having OJ try on the gloves in court.

4th They practically dared the state to bump jurors that were black and it intimidated the state so much that they allowed biased jurors on the panel.

The case was basically won before the first person took the stand and an acquittal became a virtual certainty because of the gross incompetence of the state prosecutors.

His past posts are starting to ring a bell now.

It didn’t need to be 100%, just beyond a reasonable doubt. The Special Olympic bronze medalists on the jury couldn’t grasp the concept apparently.

I’ve wore latex under my gloves, why I said we use to rob the vet shack, works well in winter, on both lined and unlined. Ive just never had an issue, I wear xxl so maybe that difference.

You and I are also talking about leather work gloves vs subtle leather driving gloves, Who knows.

DNA is the stronger evidence then the gloves, I know DNA parental test wasnt full on in front half of the 90’s, wasnt main stream until late 90’s even then there was limitations with like DNA samples, but his blood on states says he was there. They never sampled Jason’s DNA.

Back to Jason, Jason also had stabbed someone in 1992, He was on serious meds for rage disorder. The stabbing of Nicole and Goldmam where vicious.

Summary, I think Jason did it, called his dad, OJ showed up at scene, it was wreck and tried to fix it some. No telling how his blood got there

Regardless covering it up is almost as bad. So in short both are guilty

Some people have to see the snow fall from the sky to be sure it actually snowed.

What motive did he have that was stronger than his Dad's who had already beat her up in the past and had to live with the fact that the greatest prize he had ever won was no longer his?

It was either him or his son. I still think Jason did it and Oj did come over to assist fixing. Jason got caught in multiple where about lies in the civil disposition

I'll just stick to the John Rocker theory.


If you have a good lawyer, you can, in fact, get away with murder.

who knows, he was diagnosed with jekyle and hydre syndrome. Could of been as simple as protecting his Dad. She wasnt his mom. Jason and nicole were also only 9 years apart at the time. Apparently her Jason hung out alot also.

This isn't a new thing, been argued for decades. end of the day murder was done in way it was rage so either or the guy that tried to kill his boss with a knife or his dad

Since you've changed your mind to "so either or the guy that tried to kill his boss with a knife or his dad", go with the Dad.

Na Think Jason did it, Think he had a crush on step mom and had unmedicated relapse and lost it. Story goes she had reservations at his restaurant that night and no showed them going some where else. Also He had no alibi that night, and lied several times during civil trial on his whereabouts and time frames. Jason also had chef set of knives and was missing one.

Thats option #1,


option #2 is OJ randomly lost it 2 years after the divorce while he had the kids that week……

All theory nothing can be proven or disproven

How Saturday Night Live has changed. OJ jokes by Norm McDonald.

A few are pretty funny.


https://youtu.be/2SSVIg4Noqc?si=OfDosqLZl_6M53Ky

The blood evidence showed conclusively that Simpson was the killer. The Bronco had all three people’s blood all over it along with her hair and other DNA. 100% no doubt.
Unfortunately, the defense did not have to address that evidence because the prosecution did not pursue it
I think they decided two people’s deaths were not worth getting half the country burned down and they backed off.

That for sure was on a lot of people’s mind, it sure was mine, and had to be on every juror‘s mind. Because it would have happened.

They didn't make a political decision to not introduce evidence. They were simply incompetent. There were much better prosecutors in that very DAs office but they wanted a black man and a woman.

The whole thing was a circus.

Ehh you sure about that? Political decisions and optics pretty much takes precedence over anything else.

Remember the summer of love? Everyone else was locked down due to covid, but it was ok for one social class to be not locked down and in huge groups roaming cities rioting, pillaging, and burning the place down.

You are correct that today politics trump all else but this happened 30 years ago.

Same ole chit just a different day.

They were just coming off the heels of the Rodney King riots which did about $1B in damage, which in todays dollars would be closer to $2.2B in damage.

Guaranteed it was political.

No I don’t think the DA purposely tried to lose. Yes everyone was worried what would happen if he was found guilty. And yes it was a circus.

Then why would the DA agree to an almost all black jury? The DA knew what was going to happen.

The last case I filed using DNA evidence, it had a frequency of occurrence of 1 in 16,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 within the Caucasian population.

Your taking my comment out of context and you know it.